Dollars and sense

My apologies to the math majors out there, but I think it would be a fair assessment to say that, for the most part, the mere mention of anything number-related makes most of us cringe. When we are done cringing, the next thing it makes us do is reach for our calculators. I know that as much as I’ll admit to having loved calculus – and yes, I’m aware that my nerd factor just rose substantially for saying that – I’ve gotten to the point where I’m extremely reliant on my TI-89. \nStill, despite the general distaste the public seems to have for math, most people are still able to figure this one out: Four is greater than one. If I have a dollar and I invest it in something, and I get four dollars back, that would be considered a good investment. Right, business majors? See, and we didn’t even have to go through I-CORE to master that concept!\nA recently released federal study reported that for every dollar the government spends on national wildlife refuges, it generates about $4 in economic activity, more than making up for its initial cost to taxpayers. Fishing, hunting, bird watching, camping and sightseeing draw visitors to these refuges – 35 million of them in 2006. \nOK, so everyone’s cool with this? Funding natural areas is a good investment, so the government is going to keep supporting these places, right? \nWell, not exactly. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently undergoing a “restructuring,” which translates into an anticipated cut of 565 jobs from refuges by 2009, which would leave more than 200 of them unstaffed. As a result, their ability to generate revenue for local communities will be significantly compromised, since visitors will arrive to see areas of the refuges closed or poorly maintained due to lack of personnel.\nAt this point, I think it’s fairly obvious to see who in the government passed third-grade math and who didn’t. How is it sensible to pour billions of dollars into oil subsidies that will stunt the growth of renewable energy research and development – and to fund a losing effort in Iraq – while enterprises and business ventures that have actually been proven to have a substantial return for initial investment go underfunded? \nSome, in fact, estimate that the scientific community spends more money on the search for extraterrestrial life than it does on preserving biodiversity here on earth. Whose idea was that?\nProtected areas, in fact, actually provide the public a number of services that go largely unrecognized. For example, they naturally help to purify water. In New York, it’s estimated that protecting forests would be seven times cheaper than building a water treatment plant. \nI’m fully willing to let the Bush administration borrow my calculator if it comes down to it, but I think it should be pretty clear to math geeks and philosophy majors alike that we are investing our money in all the wrong areas, which will only hurt us in the long run.